Who took Niskanen's place when he got injured? Who went from being everyone's favorite trading chip to becoming an integral part of this future team's D corp? You're trying to nitpick, but its just adding to the ever-increasing mass of irrelevant posts you've made this year.

pcm wrote:Who took Niskanen's place when he got injured? Who went from being everyone's favorite trading chip to becoming an integral part of this future team's D corp? You're trying to nitpick, but its just adding to the ever-increasing mass of irrelevant posts you've made this year.

IIRC, Lovejoy replaced Niskanen when he got injured and Despres was most certainly not "everyone's favortie trading chip". If pointing out something that is factually wrong qualifies as nitpicking in your world than I don't really know what to tell you.

Niskanen got injured. Despres took his spot in the top 4. Lovejoy dressed to fill out the bottom 6. Then got traded a few games later. Despres has played in Niskanen's spot in the top 4 the entire time Niskanen's been injured. With the increased role, he's showed much more to his game than ever before at the NHL level.

I'm really not sure what you're missing; but if you don't agree with that assessment, you're missing more than I can help you with.

MRandall25 wrote:Why do people think rookies/unproven players deserve playing time over players who have established themselves?

If the rookies want playing time, they have to earn it.

How did Ben Lovejoy establish himself as a player who needs playing time over anyone?

Because he was on the team prior to this year. He knows/knew the system, and had established a position on the 3rd pairing. He got a chance to show what he could do, and the rookies were given a chance to show they were better.

Really don't get why that's a hard concept to grasp.

Boy I guess dumb ol' me just can't grasp the most simplest of things. I am still trying to figure out the picture box with the letter pad that helps me speaks to other picture boxes on this here intertubes. You have good input but your condescending demeanor can be grating.

No one thinks that Orpik, Martin, Letang, Niskanen should have been sat for rookies. The problem some people have is that you have players like Lovejoy and Engelland who you know exactly what you have in them. They are 29 and 30 so they are essentially there. Why you don't see what you have with a Bortuzzo or Despres in place of one of them is where people get lost, especially a 1st round guy like Despres. Going back to earning it, many people who follow WBS on this board and for a living have said for the last year+ that Bortuzzo has been the best defender for WBS. That qualifies as earning it does it not? I'm not saying throw them both out there at once a pray that rookies don't play like rookies but rotating players who have something to prove might be a good idea every now and then at the sacrifice of ice time for Lovejoy or Engelland. It is a fault of our coach that he has zero faith in any rookie. We all have seen it where a rookie makes a mistake and gets nailed to the bench as opposed to teaching and letting him make up for a mistake. On the other hand you have vets who can make the same crappy play (and by definition should know better) yet there is no correction or missed shift or benching.

If you want to see if guys have improved, you have to play them. This isn't an issue of "not trusting rookies". It's an issue of having no preseason, and you're making it a bigger issue than it truly is.

pcm wrote:Niskanen got injured. Despres took his spot in the top 4. Lovejoy dressed to fill out the bottom 6. Then got traded a few games later. Despres has played in Niskanen's spot in the top 4 the entire time Niskanen's been injured. With the increased role, he's showed much more to his game than ever before at the NHL level.

I'm really not sure what you're missing; but if you don't agree with that assessment, you're missing more than I can help you with.

I never disagreed with your assessment that Despres has been playing very well despite some inevitable - and rather horrible - mistakes. My point is that Despres didn't get into the lineup because of injuries. My point is that DB is not a complete idiot. My point is that you or I or anyone else on here do NOT know or see any things that DB and his staff do not know or see.

If you want to see if guys have improved, you have to play them. This isn't an issue of "not trusting rookies". It's an issue of having no preseason, and you're making it a bigger issue than it truly is.

So:vets = need playing time to see if they improved (not likely for 29 and 30 y/o)rookies = need to earn time (somehow) but not at the expense of marginal 6/7 defenders

You make my point for me... In order to see if players improve or, for that matter, are capable then they have to play. That is an even bigger statement for rookies. They need to play to get better. Oh and the whole know the system thing is bunk since WB/S plays the same system. They do that so, ya know, players from the AHL can jump right in without having to learn a new system and new assignments.

I will agree that its not a huge issue but player development has been an issue for the Pens recently.

columbia wrote:@Dejan_Kovacevic: Seeing couple drills now with Kennedy on second line with Malkin, Neal. #Pens #TribHKY

The philosophy on Planet Bylsma: if something is proven not to work, try it again.

TK, Malkin, and Neal just didn't get to their game before. They are going to get to their game now so everything will be ok. No it doesn't matter what the other team does. We just need to play Pittsburgh Penguin hockey and we will win. Once our game is gotten, forget about it.

If you want to see if guys have improved, you have to play them. This isn't an issue of "not trusting rookies". It's an issue of having no preseason, and you're making it a bigger issue than it truly is.

So:vets = need playing time to see if they improved (not likely for 29 and 30 y/o)rookies = need to earn time (somehow) but not at the expense of marginal 6/7 defenders

You make my point for me... In order to see if players improve or, for that matter, are capable then they have to play. That is an even bigger statement for rookies. They need to play to get better. Oh and the whole know the system thing is bunk since WB/S plays the same system. They do that so, ya know, players from the AHL can jump right in without having to learn a new system and new assignments.

I will agree that its not a huge issue but player development has been an issue for the Pens recently.

You're still not looking at it in terms of this shortened season:

Vets = Play them normallyRookies = need to beat out the vets

This would normally happen during camp or a preseason, but since there's no preseason, you have to play the vets over the rookies until the rookies prove they are more capable than the vets. Player evaluation necessitates you play everyone. They couldn't do it during the preseason.

And vets can't improve? Heard of Paul Martin? Hell, even Engelland and Orpik are playing much better than last year.

There was no preseason. Bylsma HAD to play both Lovejoy/Engelland AND the rookies in order to evaluate them because there was no time to actually evaluate them since, like I've said 1000 times, there was no preseason.

But there is 0 reason to just hand rookies playing time if they haven't earned it. We aren't the Blue Jackets. Our team isn't that bad where we need to consistently put rookies out there because the rest of the team sucks.

If you want to see if guys have improved, you have to play them. This isn't an issue of "not trusting rookies". It's an issue of having no preseason, and you're making it a bigger issue than it truly is.

So:vets = need playing time to see if they improved (not likely for 29 and 30 y/o)rookies = need to earn time (somehow) but not at the expense of marginal 6/7 defenders

You make my point for me... In order to see if players improve or, for that matter, are capable then they have to play. That is an even bigger statement for rookies. They need to play to get better. Oh and the whole know the system thing is bunk since WB/S plays the same system. They do that so, ya know, players from the AHL can jump right in without having to learn a new system and new assignments.

I will agree that its not a huge issue but player development has been an issue for the Pens recently.

You're still not looking at it in terms of this shortened season:

Vets = Play them normallyRookies = need to beat out the vets

This would normally happen during camp or a preseason, but since there's no preseason, you have to play the vets over the rookies until the rookies prove they are more capable than the vets. Player evaluation necessitates you play everyone. They couldn't do it during the preseason.

And vets can't improve? Heard of Paul Martin? Hell, even Engelland and Orpik are playing much better than last year.

There was no preseason. Bylsma HAD to play both Lovejoy/Engelland AND the rookies in order to evaluate them because there was no time to actually evaluate them since, like I've said 1000 times, there was no preseason.

But there is 0 reason to just hand rookies playing time if they haven't earned it. We aren't the Blue Jackets. Our team isn't that bad where we need to consistently put rookies out there because the rest of the team sucks.

Vets should get the start by default in this situation. The issue though is that Blysma won't sit them when they struggle, despite having young players waiting in the wings. Young players only get a chance to beat out a vet when someone goes down for an injury. It's creating different levels of accountability for the players that goes against the best practices in the industry for developing talent.

If you want to see if guys have improved, you have to play them. This isn't an issue of "not trusting rookies". It's an issue of having no preseason, and you're making it a bigger issue than it truly is.

So:vets = need playing time to see if they improved (not likely for 29 and 30 y/o)rookies = need to earn time (somehow) but not at the expense of marginal 6/7 defenders

You make my point for me... In order to see if players improve or, for that matter, are capable then they have to play. That is an even bigger statement for rookies. They need to play to get better. Oh and the whole know the system thing is bunk since WB/S plays the same system. They do that so, ya know, players from the AHL can jump right in without having to learn a new system and new assignments.

I will agree that its not a huge issue but player development has been an issue for the Pens recently.

You're still not looking at it in terms of this shortened season:

Vets = Play them normallyRookies = need to beat out the vets

This would normally happen during camp or a preseason, but since there's no preseason, you have to play the vets over the rookies until the rookies prove they are more capable than the vets. Player evaluation necessitates you play everyone. They couldn't do it during the preseason.

And vets can't improve? Heard of Paul Martin? Hell, even Engelland and Orpik are playing much better than last year.

There was no preseason. Bylsma HAD to play both Lovejoy/Engelland AND the rookies in order to evaluate them because there was no time to actually evaluate them since, like I've said 1000 times, there was no preseason.

But there is 0 reason to just hand rookies playing time if they haven't earned it. We aren't the Blue Jackets. Our team isn't that bad where we need to consistently put rookies out there because the rest of the team sucks.

Paul Martin and Brooks Orpik had already shown a level of play higher than what they showed last year. They have established careers as top 4 defensemen. Engelland's level of play is not very discernable from his level of play last year. You are right to not just had rookies keys to the car and just go but you can't just let them sit on the farm or in the pressbox and expect them to beat out inferior vets. I just don't see the need to stop the progression of 1st round picks and players who have outgrown the AHL for the likes of Lovejoy and Engelland. You don't play them both and together every night but you don't let them sit and watch until someone gets hurt either. We are essentially on the same page.